JUDGMENT 1. The learned District Judge appears to have selected the petitioner to be guardian of the minors person chiefly on the ground that as he says he would under Hindu Law be the preferable guardian. 2. But in fact 1st counter-petitioner who is his mothers brother is more nearly related to the minor, and when the claims of distant relations like petitioners and 2nd, 3rd and 6th counter petitioners have to be compared there is no question of preference other than what arises from a consideration of the minors welfare which is made the paramount consideration under Section 17(1) and (2) of the Guardian and Wards Act. 3. It has been often laid down that the presumptive heir to the property of a minor is not a suitable person to be appointed guardian of his person as such a person stands to gain by the minors death. See Sami Rao v. Elivatha Rao (1906) 16 MLJ 357 Krishto Kissor Neoghv v. Kadermoni Dossee (1881) 2 CLR 583 Krishnaswamy Chetty v. Cottah Mangammah (1910) 10 IC 283 The petitioner as the nearest agnate is in this case the person who would succeed to the minors property if anything happened to the minor. 4. The 1st counter-petitioner is unmarried and in a dependent position. The minor is of tender age and will need maternal care for some years to come. Such care is not to be looked for from 1st counter-petitioner or from the minors step-sister a girl of 16 who lives half the year with petitioners witness 4 who is himself not a near relation and she further is of marriageable age and likely not to remain long in petitioners house. 6. The 2nd and 6th counter-petitioners are not shown to have any particular qualification and they are very near heirs though not the next presumptive heirs. 7. Under these circumstances we think that the 5th counter-petitioner whose brother has married the 3rd counter petitioners daughter is the person who is likely to be the most disinterested protector of the minors person. 8. The District Judges order appointing the petitioner guardian of the minors property will stand upon the conditions set out at the end of his order, but in reversal of his order we appoint the 5th counter petitioner guardian of the minors person. The order allowing Rs. 8. The District Judges order appointing the petitioner guardian of the minors property will stand upon the conditions set out at the end of his order, but in reversal of his order we appoint the 5th counter petitioner guardian of the minors person. The order allowing Rs. 10 per mensem for the maintenance of the minor and his step-sister will be altered by providing Rs. 5 for the minor and Rs. 5 for Narasamma. This will be an ample sum in our opinion for the minors maintenance in view of the 5th counter-petitioners offer to maintain the minor at his own cost. Each party to bear their own costs in this and in the lower court.